Mother Angelica calls No Salatation Outside Church Heresy
#31
(01-22-2013, 12:14 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I would agree.  However, I don't think that implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed "the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages."

That would be false.
Reply
#32
From the Council of Florence:

The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics, and schismatics, can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire "which was prepared for the devil, and his angels," (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.

Reply
#33
(01-22-2013, 02:20 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-22-2013, 12:14 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I would agree.  However, I don't think that implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed "the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages."

That would be false.

Which part?  That I agree, or that I don't think implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages, or that implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages?

Although proving any of those seems impossible to me, the last seems least impossible, I suppose, so I'm guessing you meant that part.  In that case, the bare assertion is nice, simple, elegant-- and completely unconvincing.

Are you going to try and convince me that St. Thomas believed in explicity baptism of desire?  Bonne chance.  If not, are you going to at least propose a counter-example for your supposed continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages?

Or shall we just let the the definition of Florence speak for itself?
Reply
#34
(01-22-2013, 10:40 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote:
(01-22-2013, 02:20 AM)Parmandur Wrote:
(01-22-2013, 12:14 AM)JuniorCouncilor Wrote: I would agree.  However, I don't think that implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed "the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages."

That would be false.

Which part?  That I agree, or that I don't think implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages, or that implicit baptism of desire can accurately be termed the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages?

Although proving any of those seems impossible to me, the last seems least impossible, I suppose, so I'm guessing you meant that part.  In that case, the bare assertion is nice, simple, elegant-- and completely unconvincing.

Are you going to try and convince me that St. Thomas believed in explicity baptism of desire?  Bonne chance.  If not, are you going to at least propose a counter-example for your supposed continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages?

Or shall we just let the the definition of Florence speak for itself?

Implicit baptism of desire is the continuous teaching of the Church throughout the ages.  No doubt about it.

St. Thomas does indeed explicitly teach baptism of desire:

"Secondly, the sacrament of Baptism may be wanting to anyone in reality but not in desire: for instance, when a man wishes to be baptized, but by some ill-chance he is forestalled by death before receiving Baptism. And such a man can obtain salvation without being actually baptized, on account of his desire for Baptism, which desire is the outcome of 'faith that worketh by charity,' whereby God, Whose power is not tied to visible sacraments, sanctifies man inwardly. Hence Ambrose says of Valentinian, who died while yet a catechumen: 'I lost him whom I was to regenerate: but he did not lose the grace he prayed for.'"

and further:

"As it is written (1 Samuel 16:7), 'man seeth those things that appear, but the Lord beholdeth the heart.' Now a man who desires to be "born again of water and the Holy Ghost" by Baptism, is regenerated in heart though not in body. thus the Apostle says (Romans 2:29) that 'the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men but of God.'"

These examples could be multiplied endlessly, as he is very clear on the topic, expressing the Church's constant teaching.

Your understanding of Florence is incorrect, and you are not letting it "speak for itself," you are insisting on an erroneous interpretation.
Reply
#35
Par, and you misinterpret St. Aquinas,

St. Thomas Aquinas, De Veritate, 14, A. 11, ad 1: Objection‐ “It is possible that someone may be brought up in the forest, or among wolves; such a man cannot explicitly know anything about the faith. St. Thomas replies‐ It is the characteristic of Divine Providence to provide every man with what is necessary for salvation… provided on his part there is no hindrance. In the case of a man who seeks good and shuns evil, by the leading of natural reason, God would either reveal to him through internal inspiration what had to be believed, or would send some preacher of the faith to him…”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. II, 28, Q. 1, A. 4, ad 4: “If a man born among barbarian nations, does what he can, God Himself will show him what is necessary for salvation, either by inspiration or sending a teacher to him.”

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: “If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is.”

St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have spoken above.”

Saint Thomas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been revealed, all were bound to explicit faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
Reply
#36
Your quotes actually support the implicit baptism of desire, particularly that about inspiration.  Seriously, this is a teaching that can be found in the Church Fathers.  The Feeneyite teaching is erroneous.
Reply
#37
There are Church Fathers that would disagree (these are just a few):


St. John Chrysostom (Hom. in Io. 25, 3), (4th Century):
“For the Catechumen is a stranger to the Faithful… One has Christ for his King;
the other sin and the devil; the food of one is Christ, of the other, that meat which
decays and perishes… Since then we have nothing in common, in what, tell me,
shall we hold communion?… Let us then give diligence that we may become
citizens of the city above… for if it should come to pass (which God forbid!)
that through the sudden arrival of death we depart hence uninitiated
[unbaptized], though we have ten thousand virtues, our portion will be none
other than hell, and the venomous worm, and fire unquenchable, and bonds
indissoluble.”

St. Irenaeus writes:
“… giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to them: ‘Go
teach all nations, and baptize… Just as dry wheat without moisture cannot
become one dough or one loaf, so also, we who are many cannot be made one in
Christ Jesus, without the water from heaven…Our bodies achieve unity
through the washing… our souls, however, through the Spirit. Both, then, are
necessary.”

In 203 A.D., Tertullian writes:
“… it is in fact prescribed that no one can attain to salvation without Baptism,
especially in view of that declaration of the Lord, who says: ‘Unless a man
shall be born of water, he shall not have life [John 3:5]”

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, 350 A.D.:
“He says, ‘Unless a man be born again’ – and He adds the words ‘of water and the
Spirit’ – he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God…..if a man be virtuous in his
deeds, but does not receive the seal by means of the water, shall he enter into the
kingdom of heaven. A bold saying, but not mine; for it is Jesus who has
declared it.”

St. Ambrose, 387 A.D.:
“‘Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the
kingdom of God.’ No one is excepted: not the infant, not the one prevented by
some necessity.”
Reply
#38
A few more:

St. Ambrose, De mysteriis, 390‐391 A.D.:
“You have read, therefore, that the three witnesses in Baptism are one: water,
blood, and the spirit; and if you withdraw any one of these, the Sacrament of
Baptism is not valid. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common
element without any sacramental effect. Nor on the other hand is there any
mystery of regeneration without water: for ‘unless a man be born again of
water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.’ [John 3:5] Even a
catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, by which also he is signed;
but, unless he be baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, he cannot receive the remission of sins nor be recipient of the gift of
spiritual grace.”

Pope St. Innocent, 414 A.D.:
“But that which Your Fraternity asserts the Pelagians preach, that even without
the grace of Baptism infants are able to be endowed with the rewards of
eternal life, is quite idiotic.”

Theophylactus, Patriarch of Bulgaria, c. 800 A.D.:
“He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved. It does not suffice to believe; he
who believes, and is not yet baptized, but is only a catechumen, has not yet
fully acquired salvation.”

From Fr. Jurgens, who complied the 3 volume set, "The Faith of the Early Fathers":

“If there were not a constant tradition in
the Fathers that the Gospel message of ‘Unless a man be born
again of water and the Holy Ghost he cannot enter into the
kingdom of God’ is to be taken absolutely, it would be easy to
say that Our Savior simply did not see fit to mention the
obvious exceptions of invincible ignorance and physical
impossibility. But the tradition in fact is there; and it is likely
enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation
.”
Reply
#39
St. Cyprian, original formulator of EENS, in letter No. 73 to Jubaianus:

Cyprian Wrote:§22. On which place some, as if by human reasoning they were able to make void the truth of the Gospel declaration, object to us the case of catechumens; asking if any one of these, before he is baptized in the Church, should be apprehended and slain on confession of the name [of Christ], whether he would lose the hope of salvation and the reward of confession, because he had not previously been born again of water? Let men of this kind, who are aiders and favorers of heretics, know therefore, first, that those catechumens hold the sound faith and truth of the Church, and advance from the divine camp to do battle with the devil, with a full and sincere acknowledgment of God the Father, and of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost; then, that they certainly are not deprived of the sacrament of baptism who are baptized with the most glorious and greatest baptism of blood, concerning which the Lord also said, that He had "another baptism to be baptized with" (Lk. 12:50). But the same Lord declares in the Gospel, that those who are baptized in their own blood, and sanctified by suffering, are perfected, and obtain the grace of the divine promise, when He speaks to the thief believing and confessing in His very passion, and promises that he should be with Himself in paradise. Wherefore we who are set over the faith and truth ought not to deceive and mislead those who come to the faith and truth, and repent, and beg that their sins should be remitted to them; but to instruct them when corrected by us, and reformed for the kingdom of heaven by celestial discipline.

§23. But some one says, "What, then, shall become of those who in past times, coming from heresy to the Church, were received without baptism?" The Lord is able by His mercy to give indulgence, and not to separate from the gifts of His Church those who by simplicity were admitted into the Church, and in the Church have fallen asleep.

Proof texts can be multplied in any direction we want.  But the fact that BoD and BoB, and even allowing such for "noble pagans" is a consistent teaching of the Church is indisputable.  If Vatican II had gone the way of the Synod of Rome, then Feeneyism would have been condemned if even addressed.  Only the current troubles have given reprieve to the heretics.
Reply
#40
(01-22-2013, 12:12 PM)Parmandur Wrote: The Feeneyite teaching is erroneous.

The irony is that to steadfastly maintain it places one outside of the Church.

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)